Region: Europe
Year: 2010
Court: Constitutional Court [Court Constiutionelle]
Health Topics: Sexual and reproductive health
Tags: Assisted reproductive technology, Fertility, In vitro fertilization, Infertility
The applicant ASBL is an activist organization dedicated to the promotion of respect for human life and integrity of the person at every stage of development. The applicant group sought to annul Article 3 of a December 2008 law that allowed a wide range of human bodily material to be obtained and used for the purposes of medical treatment or scientific research purposes. More specifically, the applicant challenged the extension of this provision that allowed gametes, testicles or fragments of testicles, embryos and fetuses to be used for treatment or research purposes, since this unduly infringed on the integrity of the human body. The applicant alleged that the usage of such bodily material was not constitutionally valid, as it infringed on family rights, and involved the government making a political choice that should rightly be the domain of the legislature.
The applicant ASBL is an activist organization dedicated to the promotion of respect for human life and integrity of the person at every stage of development. The applicant group sought to annul Article 3 of a December 2008 law that allowed a wide range of human bodily material to be obtained and used for the purposes of medical treatment or scientific research purposes. More specifically, the applicant challenged the extension of this provision that allowed gametes, testicles or fragments of testicles, embryos and fetuses to be used for treatment or research purposes, since this unduly infringed on the integrity of the human body. The applicant alleged that the usage of such bodily material was not constitutionally valid, as it infringed on family rights, and involved the government making a political choice that should rightly be the domain of the legislature.
“Les parties requérantes n’auraient intérêt à leur recours qu’en cas d’annulation de l’article 26, 3°, de la loi du 23 décembre 2009. Il s’ensuit qu’elles ne perdront définitivement intérêt à leur recours que si l’article 26, 3°, précité n’est pas attaqué dans le délai légal ou si le recours qui serait dirigé contre cette disposition était rejeté par la Cour” – (B. 6.)
“The applicants do not have a recognized interest to annul Article 26, 3o of the law of 23 December, 2009. They will lose their interest if Article 26 3o is not attacked within the statutory period, or if the action taken against this provision would be rejected by the Court” – (B. 6.)